4 ms·
Dumping is selling at a loss. The quote clearly describes selling for a profit. Aws marginal cost is below the internal production price of the buyer
by s1artibartfast 5mo ago
Dumping is selling at a loss. The quote clearly describes selling for a profit.
Aws marginal cost is below the internal production price of the buyer
- SoftTalker 5mo agoAmazon "operated at a loss" for years, avoiding income taxes, as they dumped all their profit into building their infrastructure, which they are now selling for less than anyone else can because the taxpayers effectively subsidized it.
- s1artibartfast 5mo agoThat isnt dumping. There is a big difference between running a company at a loss and selling a good at a loss. This is exactly what we want our tax structure to incentivise. Investing in the future for growth and cheaper goods.
- SoftTalker 5mo agoYes, I should not have used the word dumping there as it's not in the same context as its usage upthread. I just meant they plowed all their profits into R&D and infrastructure growth, and as a result had very little or even negative taxable income. They operated at a loss, but it was contrived. They had revenue pouring in. While I agree we want to incentivize investing in future capacity, I don't think we intend that incentive to be used to create monopolies. As with many things, what's good at small scales can be bad at huge scales.
- s1artibartfast 5mo agoThe tax situation isnt what created monopolies. It was and is available to all. It is unclear what is bad about it, as long as they provide a better or cheaper product than the competitor. If they are ilegally preventing competition, then regulatory action should be swift. Otherwise, it is a win-win and the consumer is getting a better product than others could provide. This is the classic walmart scenario.
- SoftTalker 5mo agoIt is win-win until there's no competition left and they can now raise prices and enshitify their products with impunity.